Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government

"....... under human rights legislation .........."

What a surprise!

 

Mmmmmmm mixed feelings on this.....Ho hum.

 

My old feller would be twizzling in his grave - if he had one - latterly this was one of the few things about modern life that thoroughly got his goat. I totally appreciate that it must be distressing beyond belief to lose someone you love who was doing their job - and if they fell off a ladder or a scaffold without being given the proper safety gear, you'd want to sue their arses. Along with Drew - and I think I am right in assuming he is a more recent ex-soldier - I have mixed feelings. My dad's view, whatever you think of it, was that you signed up in the army to fight and be shot at, wounded and killed - so complaining or asking for compo when you were, was not the done thing, to put it mildly.

Of course all societies and governments have a habit of cheering soldiers off to war then ignoring them or shi**ing on them when they come back, but I fear that this will make it impossible for armies to function - if you can't give an order to a soldier because you're afraid of being sued, that's the end of discipline. I know it's more complex than that, but I heard more stories about defective equipment, guns without sights, proper ammunition, ammunition that didn't explode and munitions that did, when they weren't supposed to - than I did about successful weapons and equipment. The 1st Armoured Division went in to attack Huppy mainly equipped with little more than armoured lawnmowers (have you stood next to a Light Tank MkVI?) - silhouetted against the light with no infantry or artillery support, no HE or smoke ammunition and against entrenched anti-tank defences. They lost dozens of men and a great deal of their equipment - if that had happened last week, you could hear the sound of lawyers rubbing their hands for miles. Military incompetence was and is rife I'm sure, but does that mean it's the same as civil incompetence?

Hmmm also....

 

Brian, as I understand it, it's more to do with sending people into combat with the wrong or crap tools to do the job. There was plenty of crap tools in Iraq in 2003 which is why the Americans nicknamed us 'The Borrowers'. The Army has come on leaps and bounds in the last ten years equipment wise and personal kit now is as good, if not better than the Americans. The Americans may even start saying 'all the gear and they have the idea'

Apparently tactical decisions made on the spur of the moment by commanders won't fall under this 'right to life' and if I remember rightly it's very similar to what happened in the 70's or 80's when the MoD lost crown immunity from compensation claims - everyman and his dog put a claim in for bad knees due to running in crap boots.

Interesting to hear folk complain in various channels about it but I'd suspect if they were going off to war they'd want the best equipment available to do the job and increase their survivability, and rightly so to. Having reflected on the ruling it really is no different to the Police having proper protective clothing etc, motorway workers having hi-vis jackets, ear protection and helmets, fire service having breathing gear...The list goes on and I'm sure there would be a public outrage if we asked fire fighters to go into burning houses not protected properly so why should the soldier be any different?

Just my 2 cents

 

Drew - thanks for that, I sometimes feel morally outraged without thinking about it. I suppose as my knowledge only derives from my old feller and his dad, I get on my high horse without looking. George (dad) went off to Korea and joined what they called the Woolworths Brigade and his CO spent his first few days in Korea scrounging proper boots, hats and sleeping bags from the Yanks, so if this ruling makes the powers that be think twice about rushing in unprepared, I reckon that's got to be good for everyone and I suppose I'd feel the same way if that was my body armour/hi-viz vest.